Abe Hoffman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2011
- Messages
- 4,152
- Likes
- 460
"Mission Accomplished"
Yes, and this one too. . . He might need to transition to today's version of reality.
Bringing the War in Afghanistan to a Responsible End | The White House
I think Americans have learned that its harder to end wars than it is to begin them. Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century -- not through signing ceremonies, but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who take the lead and ultimately full responsibility.
The bottom line is, its time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When I took office, we had nearly 180,000 troops in harms way. By the end of this year, we will have less than 10,000. In addition to bringing our troops home, this new chapter in American foreign policy will allow us to redirect some of the resources saved by ending these wars to respond more nimbly to the changing threat of terrorism, while addressing a broader set of priorities around the globe.
So what is his "nimble" response to the "New Caliphate" of ISIS?
I was in no way defending Obama's actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. They have, I in my opinion, been totally wrong. Bush, however, started this disaster.
Well, technically, in the extreme, I suppose there aren't any. You can always just surrender or give in to the other's demands beforehand. These are certainly options.
But assuming a nation and/or people actually have some self-pride and dignity, then let's just say if an opposing nation strikes various military installations and interests in a coordinated attack. Something akin to Pearl Harbor.
Edit: And to simplify, since this is surely where this is headed. Say they don't directly attack any civilians or civilian interests. How are you obligated to respond?
You idiot liberals need to move the eff on. This mess is entirely in Obama's hands this time.
Who's to blame, the guy that screwed up cleaning the mess, or the guy that made the mess in the first place?
My opinion, there is some share of the blame to both guys if Iraq falls. Shouldn't have been there to begin with, and should have been managed better after we were.
You are still assuming that defense requires expeditionary operations and holding of lands and occupyings of territory in foreign countries. Successful defensive operations do not require such things.
Who's to blame, the guy that screwed up cleaning the mess, or the guy that made the mess in the first place?
My opinion, there is some share of the blame to both guys if Iraq falls. Shouldn't have been there to begin with, and should have been managed better after we were.
And it's been six years since the reigns were handed over. And Iraq was relatively stable when Obama took office. Last American troops were out in 2011. Now, two and a half years later this happens. And has Iraq gotten any support from this Administration after asking, dare I say begging?
Nope, but that can't be Obama's fault. This is all on Bush.
You idiot liberals need to move the eff on. This mess is entirely in Obama's hands this time.
Right now Maliki but how soon you forget that Obama and his cronies with all of their vast foreign policy experience couldn't negotiate a SOFA.
Chalk this one up to team O.

